2
1.
jubyp0b 10 year s ago
#1 The rings were firstly demonstrated to not be able to be solid back in the 1850's or 1860's. Roughly 150 years or so passed since. Thought it would be common knowledge
#2 Solid, Fluid (Gas & Liquid) and Plasma. That's what I was taught in school. Three.
#4 Outer core - made of liquid; Inner core - made of metal, through a cvasi-deposition process, the inner core is solid, even though it is much hotter than the outer core, due to gigantic pressure.
#21 One can argue that this is due to the oxygen inside the ship itself. One can, but should not.
Lastly, #6 is tough to debate. Let's just say it's not Gravity, it's the Centripetal Force.
#2 Solid, Fluid (Gas & Liquid) and Plasma. That's what I was taught in school. Three.
#4 Outer core - made of liquid; Inner core - made of metal, through a cvasi-deposition process, the inner core is solid, even though it is much hotter than the outer core, due to gigantic pressure.
#21 One can argue that this is due to the oxygen inside the ship itself. One can, but should not.
Lastly, #6 is tough to debate. Let's just say it's not Gravity, it's the Centripetal Force.
0
2.
tkd2009 10 year s ago
#13
can you explain me this so?--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFFAcHQE8xg
can you explain me this so?--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFFAcHQE8xg
3
4.
kachemnkillem 10 year s ago
It's nice that you employ the mentally challenged to work for you, but please stop letting them make posts. Many of these haven't been myths since the advent of the internet, and some of them are just plain wrong.
2
5.
birdman 10 year s ago
Saved me from posting verbatim statement. Some of these are just plain BS!
1
6.
Fenrisulven 10 year s ago
#6 True. All things that have a mass exercises an gravitational pull on all other things that have a mass. For example, the mass of you hands are trying to pull them together, but because gravity is so weak, you have no problem pulling them apart.
1
7.
Shawouin 10 year s ago
Hahaha, how can a black hole that don't emmit light can be anything but black? In complete darkness, is it black or another color?
Thanks for the laugh, and for many other "facts" here!
Thanks for the laugh, and for many other "facts" here!
0
8.
gigantes 10 year s ago
#27 is pretty rediculous as well. there's only one subgroup of daddy long legs that is (very mildly) venomous. it's certainly not the 'most venomous of all spiders."
@jubyp0b,
not sure i agree with you on #6. gravity bends time and space as well as matter, as the quote said. AFAIK "centripetal" does not cover that full meaning.
@jubyp0b,
not sure i agree with you on #6. gravity bends time and space as well as matter, as the quote said. AFAIK "centripetal" does not cover that full meaning.
0
9.
jubyp0b 10 year s ago
Hello, gigantes.
Regarding #6, the Centripetal is actually the one that does the "pulling" or "sucking", depending how you wish to look at it. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force#Sources_of_centripetal_force
Gravity in itself is a weak force. In relativity, a proven theory, Gravity does bend space and time on a macroscopic scale, but Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics are also proven to be correct. Quantum Gravity is the missing link between the two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
It has not yet been proven due to the lack of Gravitons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation been discovered.
Most other ofrces, if not all, have been attributed to their corresponding bosons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson.
It's quite a difficult read if you wish to fully understand the concepts and quite a handful, as well.
If you know more, or wish to correct me, be my guest.
Cheers.
Regarding #6, the Centripetal is actually the one that does the "pulling" or "sucking", depending how you wish to look at it. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force#Sources_of_centripetal_force
Gravity in itself is a weak force. In relativity, a proven theory, Gravity does bend space and time on a macroscopic scale, but Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics are also proven to be correct. Quantum Gravity is the missing link between the two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
It has not yet been proven due to the lack of Gravitons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation been discovered.
Most other ofrces, if not all, have been attributed to their corresponding bosons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson.
It's quite a difficult read if you wish to fully understand the concepts and quite a handful, as well.
If you know more, or wish to correct me, be my guest.
Cheers.
0
10.
gigantes 10 year s ago
it's a pleasure reading your posts, juby. thanks for that. i still don't see how centri-type forces describe the full aspects of gravity, yet maybe it's the right analogy... perhaps right over my head.
re: 'weak force',
gravity is the weakest of the four elemental forces AFAIK. yet its net effects seem to pile up most spectacularly, it seems.
re: 'missing link',
oh, come on... you and i both know that it's an area still heavily and hotly debated, and is pretty much the holy grail of many fields at this point.
re: 'weak force',
gravity is the weakest of the four elemental forces AFAIK. yet its net effects seem to pile up most spectacularly, it seems.
re: 'missing link',
oh, come on... you and i both know that it's an area still heavily and hotly debated, and is pretty much the holy grail of many fields at this point.
1
11.
jubyp0b 10 year s ago
Hello again,
In regard to the Centripetal Force, Gravity is Centripetal Force - for objects in orbit. Gravitation acts upon a celestial body and gives said body the Centripetal Force necessary to have an elliptical movement around the center of gravity.
Gravity is the primary force that drives our Universe at a macroscopic scale - due to the lack of gravity affecting uneven numbers of protons and electrons (electromagnetic force) and due to the lack of waves and massless elementary particles, it is dominant at macroscopic scales. Not at a quantified level, though. That is, indeed, the holy grail of a "Theory of Everything" - a possible theory that would encompass both Particle / Quantum Physics and General or Special Relativity.
Speaking of Relativity - it has proven the flaws of Newton's Classical Gravity formula and discrepancies in the observed Universe. It may at times be a Field or Radiation - the fact is that Classical Gravity does not confer a good enough response for all the anomalies observed.
To put it short, we feel the Centripetal Force (or Gravity, if you wish) of Earth's orbit, otherwise, we'd be stuck in one point. Or take the Coriolis Effect. We can prove it easily, we see it in a lot of meteorological and thermodynamic events, yet it is the Centripetal Force that keeps the Centrifugal Force (a lack of Centripetal Force) at "bay".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons
/2/23/Forces_in_a_Parabolic_Dish.svg
is a good example as well. On a parabolic type of object, if a ball is placed, it should not move, unless the Centripetal Force exerts upon it (Red = Gravity, Green = Normal, Blue = Centripetal - the resultant of the two vectors / forces). One would expect that due to Gravity and the angled space, the object would move towards a point of equilibrium. Yet, it is the Centripetal Force that does so.
I agree that Gravity "sucks" or "pulls" in all directions, until a stronger force comes along - limited to the "fabric" of space-time. In General Relativity, Gravity cannot pull from beyond the lower brane (or layer / fabric) of the space-time. As it bends space-time, it will exert a very strong attraction to things that come in contact with said curvature. It is Gravity that does said "pulling".
Cheers again.
P.S. I hope I made some sense in all of these phrases.
P.P.S. in regard to the caption of #6, we feel it downward because the centre of gravity is downward in regard to our frame (that of the Earth). The Earth is almost (more or less) spherical - that's why we feel it downward. That was what I was initially trying to say in regard to the Centripetal Force.
In regard to the Centripetal Force, Gravity is Centripetal Force - for objects in orbit. Gravitation acts upon a celestial body and gives said body the Centripetal Force necessary to have an elliptical movement around the center of gravity.
Gravity is the primary force that drives our Universe at a macroscopic scale - due to the lack of gravity affecting uneven numbers of protons and electrons (electromagnetic force) and due to the lack of waves and massless elementary particles, it is dominant at macroscopic scales. Not at a quantified level, though. That is, indeed, the holy grail of a "Theory of Everything" - a possible theory that would encompass both Particle / Quantum Physics and General or Special Relativity.
Speaking of Relativity - it has proven the flaws of Newton's Classical Gravity formula and discrepancies in the observed Universe. It may at times be a Field or Radiation - the fact is that Classical Gravity does not confer a good enough response for all the anomalies observed.
To put it short, we feel the Centripetal Force (or Gravity, if you wish) of Earth's orbit, otherwise, we'd be stuck in one point. Or take the Coriolis Effect. We can prove it easily, we see it in a lot of meteorological and thermodynamic events, yet it is the Centripetal Force that keeps the Centrifugal Force (a lack of Centripetal Force) at "bay".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons
/2/23/Forces_in_a_Parabolic_Dish.svg
is a good example as well. On a parabolic type of object, if a ball is placed, it should not move, unless the Centripetal Force exerts upon it (Red = Gravity, Green = Normal, Blue = Centripetal - the resultant of the two vectors / forces). One would expect that due to Gravity and the angled space, the object would move towards a point of equilibrium. Yet, it is the Centripetal Force that does so.
I agree that Gravity "sucks" or "pulls" in all directions, until a stronger force comes along - limited to the "fabric" of space-time. In General Relativity, Gravity cannot pull from beyond the lower brane (or layer / fabric) of the space-time. As it bends space-time, it will exert a very strong attraction to things that come in contact with said curvature. It is Gravity that does said "pulling".
Cheers again.
P.S. I hope I made some sense in all of these phrases.
P.P.S. in regard to the caption of #6, we feel it downward because the centre of gravity is downward in regard to our frame (that of the Earth). The Earth is almost (more or less) spherical - that's why we feel it downward. That was what I was initially trying to say in regard to the Centripetal Force.
-1
13.
kevin.stoffels 10 year s ago
#22 is false, genes do go extinct.
#27 is false, they don't even produce poison.
#27 is false, they don't even produce poison.
2
14.
gigantes 10 year s ago
one of three species groups does in fact produce venom, kevin stoffels. feel free to look it up.
-1
15.
DarkWolf 10 year s ago
#7 - My wife is sensitive to MSG, it causes flushing, headaches, nausea and vomiting. This is with any food/product containing it and has been blind tested.
-1
16.
mrmot22 10 year s ago
#5 They are called Killer whales because they are killing whales, not because they are.
1
19.
nohelpneeded 10 year s ago
how much wrong can they put into a single post? Evidently all of it!
#2 Solid, Fluid (Gas & Liquid) and Plasma. That's what I was taught in school. Three.
#4 Outer core - made of liquid; Inner core - made of metal, through a cvasi-deposition process, the inner core is solid, even though it is much hotter than the outer core, due to gigantic pressure.
#21 One can argue that this is due to the oxygen inside the ship itself. One can, but should not.
Lastly, #6 is tough to debate. Let's just say it's not Gravity, it's the Centripetal Force.
can you explain me this so?--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFFAcHQE8xg
Thanks for the laugh, and for many other "facts" here!
@jubyp0b,
not sure i agree with you on #6. gravity bends time and space as well as matter, as the quote said. AFAIK "centripetal" does not cover that full meaning.
Regarding #6, the Centripetal is actually the one that does the "pulling" or "sucking", depending how you wish to look at it. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force#Sources_of_centripetal_force
Gravity in itself is a weak force. In relativity, a proven theory, Gravity does bend space and time on a macroscopic scale, but Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics are also proven to be correct. Quantum Gravity is the missing link between the two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
It has not yet been proven due to the lack of Gravitons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation been discovered.
Most other ofrces, if not all, have been attributed to their corresponding bosons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson.
It's quite a difficult read if you wish to fully understand the concepts and quite a handful, as well.
If you know more, or wish to correct me, be my guest.
Cheers.
re: 'weak force',
gravity is the weakest of the four elemental forces AFAIK. yet its net effects seem to pile up most spectacularly, it seems.
re: 'missing link',
oh, come on... you and i both know that it's an area still heavily and hotly debated, and is pretty much the holy grail of many fields at this point.
In regard to the Centripetal Force, Gravity is Centripetal Force - for objects in orbit. Gravitation acts upon a celestial body and gives said body the Centripetal Force necessary to have an elliptical movement around the center of gravity.
Gravity is the primary force that drives our Universe at a macroscopic scale - due to the lack of gravity affecting uneven numbers of protons and electrons (electromagnetic force) and due to the lack of waves and massless elementary particles, it is dominant at macroscopic scales. Not at a quantified level, though. That is, indeed, the holy grail of a "Theory of Everything" - a possible theory that would encompass both Particle / Quantum Physics and General or Special Relativity.
Speaking of Relativity - it has proven the flaws of Newton's Classical Gravity formula and discrepancies in the observed Universe. It may at times be a Field or Radiation - the fact is that Classical Gravity does not confer a good enough response for all the anomalies observed.
To put it short, we feel the Centripetal Force (or Gravity, if you wish) of Earth's orbit, otherwise, we'd be stuck in one point. Or take the Coriolis Effect. We can prove it easily, we see it in a lot of meteorological and thermodynamic events, yet it is the Centripetal Force that keeps the Centrifugal Force (a lack of Centripetal Force) at "bay".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons
/2/23/Forces_in_a_Parabolic_Dish.svg
is a good example as well. On a parabolic type of object, if a ball is placed, it should not move, unless the Centripetal Force exerts upon it (Red = Gravity, Green = Normal, Blue = Centripetal - the resultant of the two vectors / forces). One would expect that due to Gravity and the angled space, the object would move towards a point of equilibrium. Yet, it is the Centripetal Force that does so.
I agree that Gravity "sucks" or "pulls" in all directions, until a stronger force comes along - limited to the "fabric" of space-time. In General Relativity, Gravity cannot pull from beyond the lower brane (or layer / fabric) of the space-time. As it bends space-time, it will exert a very strong attraction to things that come in contact with said curvature. It is Gravity that does said "pulling".
Cheers again.
P.S. I hope I made some sense in all of these phrases.
P.P.S. in regard to the caption of #6, we feel it downward because the centre of gravity is downward in regard to our frame (that of the Earth). The Earth is almost (more or less) spherical - that's why we feel it downward. That was what I was initially trying to say in regard to the Centripetal Force.
#27 is false, they don't even produce poison.